GMA: Children NEED religion biologically!

[DEMActivist]

Is anyone watching this shit????

Good heavens, there's a woman on this show saying that biologically, children REQUIRE religion.

That they REQUIRE a belief in God.

I am sitting here stunned.

on edit:
OK, this is frightening....

These were the speakers:
Dr. Kathleen Kover Klein, Dartmouth
Bill Stanzcykweiz

This woman's initials are KKK!!!

[trof]

1. I remember more of a requirement for

Chicklets, Almond Joys, and chocolate malteds.
;-)

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Biologically? Is there an organ which converts religion into vitamins?

or something?

That's like saying children need Santa Claus biologically.

[DEMActivist]

9. Yes, biologically...

that was the contention. It was the most stunning piece of trash I have ever witnessed.

I'm still sitting here with my jaw on the floor.

[demnan]

3. Where is this on?

As far as children needing religion - they probably need something to soften the idea of death, to that I agree. I wouldn't tell a five year old that they were definitely going to die some day and that was it. Period. I don't think a young child can handle that.

Nor would I drag a child to church to be fed a bunch of stuff I didn't believe.

[DEMActivist]

7. ABC - Good Morning America n/t

[Hamlette]

48. telling 5 year olds about death

it would be better to tell them the truth (you die, that's it) than to start feeding them lies at that age!

Anyway, 5 year olds don't get it yet so it is the perfect age to tell them. Young children don't really understand death, they don't get frightened of it until a little later, age 8 or so. Ask any school teacher. You can sing scary songs and read scary stories and poems to 5 year olds, no problem. About 3rd grade (for most) is when they begin to understand time and death. (there are exceptions of course) because they are more abstract concepts.

As a 3rd generation godless commie pinko the MOST important thing my parents taught me at that age was "just because everyone believes it doesn't make it true." (when I asked about god)

[starroute]

57. You can't control what children believe about death

My older son was only three when our old cat died. He was very distressed for some while after that, and would say things like, "But after I'm dead if I have no hands how will I eat?" Because he was so little, I never did figure out what his ideas about death really were or how to keep him from being so upset.

Little kids are piecing the universe together from whatever they can pick up, and you can't filter out the stuff you don't want them to hear. For every child who has ever been reassured by a line of "grandpa is up in heaven with the angels," there are probably three more who have freaked out over suggestions of hellfire and brimstone.

[Monte Carlo]

4. What is she a doctor of? Not biology, I hope...

... because that is not a very scientific statement to make.

Biologically, children need food, water, and sleep, just like everything else. They could be brain-dead and this would still be true.

SOMETHING to believe in is important, but not _necessary_.

[DEMActivist]

5. My email to Good Morning America

I just sat stunned watching your show where you had on Dr. Kathleen Kover Klein of Dartmouth and Bill Stanzcykweiz talking about children NEEDING religion.

I am a deeply religious person, and parent of 5 children, but what I saw on your show this morning was the most stunning piece of propaganda I have ever seen in my life.

I sit here stunned as I digest what GMA has become - the newest propagandized version of the 700 Club.

I knew at my very core that GMA had given up any journalistic ethics, but I had no idea until this morning how completely we had lost any premise of a free press.

I cannot vocalize my disgust.

[jenm]

39. pretty good vocalization anyway

[goobergunch]

6. I'd rather have a lunch period than religion...

currently I don't have either one.

[demnan]

8. Awww!

poor baby! I wish I could send you a nice cup of soup :-)

But you'll be smarter than I was in public school.

[sexybomber]

94. I can't believe that's legal.

You probably don't go to school in New York, because I think we have a law mandating that high-school age kids have lunch periods... or something...

[JHB]

10. In what context?

Do children need moral and ethical guidance (and examples)? Of course.

But do they "need" belief in gods and such? Hogwash!

[DemExpat]

13. Yeah, they do need guidance and love.....

but a belief in a religion, a God?

I guess I have deprived my 2 children then - they seem to be very well adjusted young people sans organized religion....

DemEx

[DEMActivist]

14. It was presented in the context of....

Instead of "Hillary's It Takes a Village" (yes, Diane Sawyer specifically asked that question).

It doesn't take a village to raise a child in today's society - it only takes a deep seated belief in religion, along with religious training beginning at a very young age and we can save the children.

Dr. KKK even said you can't get quality time with your children without first getting quantity time at church.

[JHB]

22. ...In other words, it takes a "village".

I love how these fundy types so quckly dismiss that phrase, then proceed emphasize the need for some other form of community (merely "village" renamed) to properly raise children.

[rock]

11. Like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?

[R Hickey]

12. I required the need for the Santa Clause myth...

However, thanks to rational minds, many people outgrow the need for such beliefs when they reach the age of five.

In order for religious myths to overide critical, logical thinking, and to perpetuate themselves in an economically feasable way, most religions need to instill their "god myth" and "virgin birth" myths on the extremely gullible, which demographically, also happens to be the 'under-five-years-old' crowd.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Ah more "myth" talk

Funny, how I don't call your lack of belief a myth. Why do you insist on insulting my beliefs?

In theory, we're on the same side. In practice, the anti-religion folks here make it clear we are not.

[Wednesdays]

21. I'm pro-religion...

Indeed, I'm a church choral leader. But to try to couch the subject in "scientific" terms, is just plain phoney.

[Walt Starr]

23. All gods are myths by definition

From www.m-w.com (the online Merriam Webster Dictionary):

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

There is no verifiable evidence to support the existance of any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist within human history, ergo, all gods are myths by simple definition (#3 from Merriam Webster).

In fact, if gods were not myths, faith would be obsolete. Again, from Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA(th)z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Proof obsoletes faith, ergo, gods must be myths to require faith.

[papau]

38. having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence defines much "science"

yet we use science as it gives us answers.

I suggest belief in God is as solid as science belief du jour, and in both cases deserve respect, and not the put down word "myth"

The next time you express "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" - such as the laws of physics are "laws" and apply without fudge factor - ignoring the current need for a cosmo constant plus a fudge factor on the fudge factor of a cosmo constant - plus a need for 11 dimensions with 7 curled" perhaps you might note that Human best effort to explain does lead to good things - both in science and in religion.

Leave "myth" as a word to be used in your bar conversations, or as an organizing description of all belief systems. "No proof" is an opinion - and nothing more.

[Walt Starr]

41. Please, you need to learn about modern scientific definitions

Laws are not abslute in physics. New data that can verify differences in accepted equations would redefine those "laws".

We can verify the existance of gravity. We can quantify the effects gravity has upon an object based upon observable facts.

Give me the measure of any alleged god. Quantify the divine. Verify the metaphysical.

[papau]

171. When is "redefine" not disprove? = playing with lanuage is fun but

leads no "proof", at least IMHO.

:-)

[Walt Starr]

193. This is a debate

Words are utilized in debate. If we do not rely upon the definition of wrods, we cannot have an intelligent debate.

My statement stands as irrefutable.

[Liberal Veteran]

43. Having only an unverifiable existance defines ALL gods...

Trying to compare belief in a supreme deity with science is psuedologic, imo.

[Walt Starr]

46. In fact, an unverifiable existance is a requirement for faith

We can present independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of gravity, evolution, sub-atomic particles, etc. etc. etc.

Due to the overwhleming quantity of independenlty verifiable evidence that can be presented in each of these cases, each item rises above the level of the hypothetical to the level of the theoretical.

The lack of any independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of any one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist during human history keeps these allegations from even rising to the level of the hypothetical, ergo, they all remain mythical by definition.

[papau]

188. What nonsense - who made you the judge of Theoretical vs Hypothetical?

Lanuauge is fun to play with - and graduations of belief is always a great game, as is defining the rules so that logic to be applied here but not there.

Welcome to the game, youngin.

:-)

[Walt Starr]

191. I am not the judge of theoretical vs. hypothetical

Science has defined those terms, not me.

[papau]

209. No - science has no definition - it is a word of "Art" used to list

out results by the degrees of faith or quanity of faith that one thinks one needs to "accept" a suggested result.

And God forbid we get into what science "acceptance" means!

:-)

[Liberal Veteran]

25. I respect your right to practice religion....

And I am totally agnostic (not an athiest) myself, but it should be no surprise that people who are athiests think that your religious beliefs are myths. Just like many religious people believe athiests are damned to hell for all eternity.

That's just logic. I have never understood the tendency of religious people to get all bent out of shape over atheists referring to ALL religion as mythology. It is not reasonable to expect an athiest to place current religious beliefs on a pedestal above that of the worship of Zeus or Odin or any of the defunct religions that you yourself probably call mythology.

[Walt Starr]

26. I'm a Pagan and I refer to all gods as myths

Simply because it's an irrefutable fact.

[papau]

40. Context is everything - and shows motive - and in an academic

sense "myth" defines all belief systems - and since "proof" is an opinion (we really have only reproducible experiment and a guess at the cause of the result of the experiment) there is not much that can not be put down as "myth".

[Walt Starr]

42. Belief systems in and of themselves are not myths

Only the metaphysical beliefs espoused by those systems can be rightly called myths.

[papau]

203. Only Some beliefs can be "myths" - and those we call "metaphysical"?

You're Game playing with words again, Walt.

Sorry - but you can not define away your lack of logic - at least your lack of logic as I see it.

I agree with liberal_veteran that it is not reasonable to expect an athiest to place current religious beliefs on a pedestal above that of the worship of Zeus or Odin or any of the defunct religions - and I do not ask that any atheist do so - I do ask that they at least note my view that there is little in this world that one can "prove" - so not proving a negative is not really very on point - or true since that is just what one does in testing science consepts. And therefore "There is no God" is indeed just another belief system - despite Walts protests.

As to what is bad manners - well some of us see Walt in refusing to stop with "myth" as bad manners - While he may place our belief system in that category, and logically should, to keep repeating that which is unproveable does nor enlighten nor show good manners when one knows it offends.

[Stuckinthebush]

49. Wow...I like that

Good response.

I never thought about it like that before, but it makes sense. For instance, I as a non-Aztec view the Aztec's need to sacrifice a person every day to ensure the sun rises as pure myth, of course. I would imagine that close to 100% of the American population would as well. Similarly, I see the myths surrounding all religions and beliefs as fascinating, but no more than myth. Why, then would I place Christianity in a different category? I am not disrespecting Christianity by labeling those beliefs/practices as myth, I am simply expressing the same sentiment that I have for all mystical beliefs. How could I do differently?

[starroute]

65. Calling something "myth" is not an insult

The problem as I see it is that there are two kinds of knowledge and people tend to confuse them.

On one side, there's factual knowledge, which can be measured and defined and is subject to tests and proofs.

Beyond that, there are theories, which are abstract concepts we use to try to make sense of facts. Theories can never be proven to be "true," but we can rate them by how well they explain the facts: Does quantum theory explain observed phenomena? Does evolution explain the diversity of life and the similarities and differences among various species?

On the other side, there are all those sorts of knowledge which cannot be measured or tested -- intuitions and intimations, visions and inspirations, the ineffable and the inexplicable.

Myths are to those sorts of knowledge as theories are to factual knowledge. They're attempts to make sense of all the stuff we can barely even articulate. And, like theories, we rate myths according to their results: A myth that leads people to lead upright, moral lives is generally consider superior to one whose followers are notoriously dissolute. A myth that promotes harmony and understanding is superior to one whose outcome is mass human sacrifice or autos-da-fe.

But the problem I see in today's culture is that for centuries facts and theories have been considered the only reliable form of knowledge, while intimations and myths have been systematically downgraded. As a result, much of religion has been twisted into the uncomfortable position of pretending to be an alternate set of facts and theories. That's why there's such a continuing uproar over creationism. It's why Christians will grasp at bone-boxes of dubious provenance as a "proof" of Christianity. And it's why even many of the sweet folk here at DU will feel insulted if you suggest their beliefs have no factual basis.

But that's what religion is, guys. It's belief in the intangible and unprovable. To try to turn it into something less than that is itself an insult.

[Walt Starr]

69. Thank you!

The fact that the metaphysical, by definition, is mythical makes it all that more wondrous!

We cannot even begin to formulate theories about everything. We can collect data and arrive at base hypotheses surrounding that data, collect more to either corroborate or deny these hypotheses in order to formulate better hypotheses or arrive at theories, but that still falls short of the desire for more widespread explanations.

This is where myth comes in and why myth is so powerful in social organization.

I reccomend everybody read Joseph Cambell, perhaps the most astute authoraity on mythology and why it is so widespread in culture.

[papau]

16. I agree Children - and adults - "need" religion, but "need" as in

they in general (and beware all generalities) do "better" in life with it - as in are more at peace, are more focused on doing "right" actions. Indeed a rational view of life leads 90% of folks to a belief in God, if not religion (heck - ones first post grad physics course/math course leads to the same rational - and I do mean rational - as in the acceptance via faith is now seen by one as being rational - belief in God).

To find a bio need is impossible IMHO.

:-)

[SidDithers]

32. Huh?

I would agree that there is no bio need for religion. But, I can't really say that I agree with your blanket statments that "a rational view of life leads 90% of folks to a belief in God, if not religion" or that the religious "do "better" in life with it - as in are more at peace, are more focused on doing "right" actions".

Do I have an irrational view of life if I don't believe in a God? Who are you to say whether I'm more at peace with my life, or if the choices I make in my life are the "right" ones, just because I don't fear being denied eternal reward in heaven? Certainly, some of the actions taken by the profoundly religious would not be considered the "right" ones. I find your attitude somewhat condescending.

I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, please show me the same respect.

Peace.

Sid

[papau]

35. Hi Sid - please note my IMHO applied to all my statements.

In my humble opinion - IMHO - applies to every post on this thread - or should. And my statement "beware all generalities" is I believe what your post is all about.

I do show you and everyone respect - but that includes not being afraid to voice my opinion, noting that it is only opinion and observation by me.

Condescending is not my attitude - I was just adding my observations and the conclusions I take from those observations to this thread.

Peace

Bill

[Az]

47. If we are to be wary of all generalities

Then perhaps one should be wary of issuing them without doing some research first. This is how misunderstanding and rumors start. And I am sure you would rather us deal with facts than misunderstandings.

[Walt Starr]

50. My statement that all gods are myths by definition is not opinion

It is an irrefutable statement of fact. I presented the proof of that fact.

It's simple definition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Simple

Yeah, I might have used that word too.

It's a putdown. I don't say your lack of belief is a myth, though I believe it to be so. And we could go round and round debating God, but there's no need. I just want to know why the anti-God squad is determined to make believers here feel unwelcome.

[Liberal Veteran]

56. But couldn't it also be argued...

...that you are trying to force atheists to place your particular religious beliefs to a level that flies in the face of what they believe in order to not offend you?

Atheists do believe that there is no such thing as god and that Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Shiva, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are pretty much all myths.

Whether they are right or wrong is not at issue.

Why should atheists be required to make some concession that doesn't square with their belief system in order to avoid offending your sensibilities?

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. It could be argued that night is day and day is night

All I am arguing is that if we are on the same side, we should treat each other with respect. You choose not to.

I am sure the religious folks here believe a whole LOT about atheists that we don't repeat. Why start flame wars? Why disrespect one another? Why add fuel to the fire that says the radical left is anti-religious?

[Walt Starr]

66. There is no lack of respect in me making the 100% irrefutably factual

statement that all gods are myths.

I am merely stating fact, not putting anybody down.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. The word offends

So continued use is intentionally offending people.

[Walt Starr]

74. IT is not offensive

It is factual. Denial of facts is more offensive than a word that accurately describes the situation.

Again, read Joseph Campbell and get back to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. Calling me Darkie

Would be offensive, yet factual. Would you do so knowing it would offend me?

[Walt Starr]

81. No, Myth is not a pergorative

It is a term long used by academics to describe religious teachings.

Again, take a course on comparative mythology. The Bible is always used in them as is the Bhagavad Gita, the Q'uran, and a host of other mythological works.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. No, actually, I choose not to

Because the Bible is my holy book. I don't want to compare it to Lord of The Rings or whatever else you wish.

Maybe in academic circles, they bandy about the term "myth" like it's no big deal.

Out here in the real world, it offends. You persist, which makes your character quite clear.

[Walt Starr]

87. It is no big deal

Provide the independently verifiable evidence to support your god's existance and your god will no longer be a myth. It's that simple.

Until then, your god remains a myth by definition.

Once you have provided that evidence, faith is no longer necessary.

So, does your god require faith or do you have verification?

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. LOL

You persist in posting assinine comments designed to hide the issue.

You want to use a term that offends millions of people, but want to hide that offense in bullshit terminology.

The term remains offensive. Your posts remain offensive.

[Walt Starr]

96. No, I do not

I made the statement of irrefutable fact.

Can you refute it? Can you provide the verification? If not, your god remains a myth by definition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Statements of fact

I also made a statement of fact. It said, the term "myth" is offensive. Yet you persist in using it. Why is that?

One can only conclude that you WANT to offend religious people.

[Walt Starr]

101. Provde the definiton whereby "myth is a pergorative

Provide the verification to demosntrate your statement that "myth" is a derisive term.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Religious people have made that clear here in repeated threads

But you persist.

Thanks for my daily reminder that it is often impossible for religious people to find common cause with the most radical here.

[Walt Starr]

106. What you take as offensive is your fault

not mine. I merely made a statement of irrefutable fact.

Some have decided that saying Bush is a bad president is offensive, does that stop it from being so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

110. Actually, you are wrong again

Words have power, whether we embrace them or not. Words intended to offend amazingly often do just that.

The term myth in regard to people's deep-seated religious beliefs offends many. Yet, here we are, dozens of posts later, dozens of threads later, and still you persist.

Truly appalling.

[Walt Starr]

114. I used the word whose deifnition

matches the conditions precisely.

All gods are myths by definition. The only way to refute that fatual statement is to provide verification for the existance of any one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist at one point or another in human history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. If you find something in a book that offends people

Why keep using it?

[Walt Starr]

121. I am not backing off on this.

I made a statement of fact. I provided the proof that my statement is irrefutably factual. I provided a methodology to disprove my statement.

You have yet to provide verification to refute my statement, ergo, it stands.

All gods are myths by definition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. Neither am I

I have made a statement of fact. The term "myth" is offensive to me and lots of other DUers. I guess you like dividing us up then based on religion.

[Walt Starr]

125. If you don't like it

I suggest you follow the advise of DU. I am not disrupting. I am not making personal attacks. I ahve made a statemenet of irrefutable fact.

Provide verification or my statement stands.

All gods are myths by definition

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. I don't like it

So I am continuing to point out that it offends. Anytime I see it used in a thread in this manner, I will do so. As, no doubt, will others.

I suggest you follow the advice of how to get along with others and not say things that they find enormously offensive by targeting their most essential beliefs with derogatory terms.

[Walt Starr]

132. all gods re myths by definition

Until you can refute it, I'll keep saying it.

[Blue_Chill]

138. No one can stop you from pissing people off

But it doesn't make it right to do so. You lose nothing by using words that are less offensive to religious DUers, yet you continue for no good reason at all.

So do as you wish, but know that you are doing it for no other reason then to annoy others and cause much trouble because of it.

Good day.

[Walt Starr]

147. I',m sorry if the truth pisses you off

but I will not refrain from stating the truth.

All gods are myths by defnition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

154. I'm sorry you ignore the truth

That using offensive terms pisses people off.

[Walt Starr]

162. Myth is not any more offensive than baseball

Using the term baseball in conjunction with a sticthed, horsehide ball used in the game baseball is as valid as using myth in conjunction with the term god in any discussion of same.

Myth fits the term god by defnition, ergo.

All gods are myths by definition as I have proven. Trying to make some claim of "offensiveness" does not alter the fact that all gods are myths by defnition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

164. Care to bet?

Since you aren't the one offended, this is like when white people tell me I should find "nigger" offensive. It's just a historical term after all...

[Walt Starr]

170. Yes, I will bet

By definition, the term you use is a pergorative slang term. Don't believe me? Look it up.

By defnition, "myth" is a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

there is not a single god ever to have been alleged to exist that has been verified to exist, ergo, all gods are myths.

The offense is only in your mind. There is no offensive nature to making the statement that all gods are myths by definition.

[papau]

184. "verified to exist" -define the experiment that "proves" anything exists

Yet we "know it when we see it"

and the idea that reproducible experiments must prove something beyond the fact they are reproducible is an act of faith taken by all who claim science and the scientific method prove anything.

And I take that leap - that act of faith - as to science, and also as to God.

You do not accept faith as to God. I find your ability to have faith in science - but not in God - illogical. I find your "proof" request silly. I find "myth" as use by you to describe belief in God an offensive putdown.

And as we both have a right to our opinion, we will no doubt continue to have our opinion.

The request has been made to refain from using "myth" if it is only to use it as a put down. You have refused, saying it is not a putdown. Some of us have stated that to us it is offensive - and you complain that we have a problem - not you. As logic, even as to manners, no longer seems to be part of any discussion with you - IMHO - on this topic - I choose to ignore your further comments.

[TLM]

176. If the truth is offensive to you...

perhaps it is because you have so much energy invested in believing a myth?

Would you find it offensive is I said Santa or the tooth fairy were myths? Nope, because you don't go to a church every Sunday to pray to the tooth fairy.

Can you accept that it is possible you are wrong about god? Can you admit that it is possible god does not exist any more than the tooth fairy?

[Blue_Chill]

181. Thanks for pointing out exactly why 'myth' is offensive

It carries with it a stigma. To say ones belief is a myth is o say one believes in something that is false. People tend to get offended when you tell them they are in effect full of shit.

Your post of course goes way beyond simpley using the word myth. But you proved my point just the same. Thanks, for once your offensive nature came in handy.

[Walt Starr]

186. Wrong again

I, for one, have never claimed that religions are myths. The existance of religions is verifable. Religions do in fact exist.

Gods, on the other hand, are unverifiable. That is where the association with the term, "myth", comes from. Stating that all gods are myths by definition merely affirms that all deities, regardless of any religion associated with said deity(ies), have unferifiable existances.

Look at the definition again. A myth is a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

[Blue_Chill]

195. I did read the definition again

and I saw the word "imaginary" which is the context in which "myth" is used most frequently. Calling the God in which I believe a myth places him/her/it on the level with a imaginery friend. I must say that is more insulting then a previously thought.

[Muddleoftheroad]

197. It's still an offensive word

I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that.

[Walt Starr]

201. It is not offensive

It is not meant as offensive. IT is simply a statement of irrefutable fact.

I will continue to make the statement until it is refuted.

I will never grasp that it is offensive because it is the only factually accurate frame of reference when those of differeing religios faiths decide to discuss religion. All gods are myths or else there would be a valid religion (or religions) associated only with the verified deity (or deities).

Until we can come down to a single religion, we must begin with a single factual frame of reference. All gods are myths by defintion. That puts all religions and lack of religions on equal footing right from the beginning.

[Liberal Veteran]

98. Would you like to off a politically correct alternative....

...that doesn't offend you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. He also uses the term god or gods

Why not stick with them?

[Walt Starr]

103. Over 4000 gods have been alleged to exist at one point or other

in human history.

Not a single one ha ever been verified to exist, ergo, by the deifnition of myth, every last one of them are myths.

If you wish to refute this, you must verify the existance on any one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Nope

I don't have to verify squat. I made it clear that this is an offensive term. That is obvious, but you seem unwilling to notice that fact.

[Walt Starr]

113. It is not a pergorative

It is not a deragatory slang term. It is not derisive. It is a noun with a definition that describes any god ever to have been alleged to exist.

I simply made a statement of irrefutable fact. I've given you ample opportunity to refute that fact. You cannot, ergo, my statement stands.

All gods are myths by definition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. All your posts

Are offensive by definition when they use the term myth to refer to my religious beliefs.

You have not refuted this, you have not truly even attempted to do so. Ergo, the fact stands. They offend and you persist in doing so.

[Blue_Chill]

142. Walt who made you the judge of that?

The group offended claims the right to decide what is offensive. Not the group doing the offending.

So sorry to burst your bubble Walt but 'myth' is offensive, and I have asked you to stop using it. The fact that you continue to do so knowing that it is offensive shows that you are meaning to offend.

Good day.

[TLM]

182. So if I tell you not to use the term god

because I find that offensive, guess that means you intend to offend when you refer to your fantasy boggie man in the sky as a god instead of as a figment of your imagination in which you have faith.

You do not like the term myth because it denotes the fact that there’s no proof your god exists. You prefer language with assumes that your god is real and is in fact a god.

I find that assumption and insistence that I recognize your superstition as fact, very offensive, so please stop using the term god to describe the make-believe being you worship.

[Liberal Veteran]

117. So my book on Greek Mythology is offensive to you?

And if it you don't think it's offensive, can you explain why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. I don't know, I haven't seen it

And, since I don't personally either worship the Greek gods or even know anyone who does, it's harder for me to muster annoyance. But I would be annoyed if you called Allah a myth as I am when you call Jesus a myth. I know people in both religions. I know they are offended by this term.

[Walt Starr]

124. But now you are saying your god has more validity than Zeus

I worship The God in His form as Zeus from time to time (or The Goddess in Her form as Hera).

Why is your god more valid than mine? There's only one way yours could possibly be more valid than mine. I admit mine is unverifiable. Yours can only be more valid than mine if you can verify your god's existance.

[Liberal Veteran]

126. And that is why I have chosen agnosticism....

Because too many people wanting everyone else to make concessions to their particular brand of religion.

Requiring an atheist, which I am not, to refer to Yahweh or Jehovah as anything other than mythology is requiring them to turn their backs on what they believe. In essense, you are saying, "You are not allowed to publically deny the existance of my God".

[BigMcLargehuge]

129. I posted something similar to this below

Atheists do not believe in the non-existence of God. That "belief" would suggest that a god or gods exist and that we simply choose to ignore them.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of god/gods, because to prove a negative is logically impossible.

What we do is drop the burden of proof on the believer, that's called The Critical Task of Philosphy, then we dismantle their arguments. When an argument is presented that CANNOT be dismantled, then the proof of a god/gods existence will no longer be in doubt. To date ALL arguments that purport to prove the existence of god/gods have been dismantled.

We do not say "I do not believe in god/gods" we say "there is no god" there is no belief necessary to support this statement.

[Liberal Veteran]

136. I see that as a distinction without a difference....

In other words:

From where I stand, the phrase "I do not believe in god" is equivalent to "There is no god". However you prefer to phrase it makes no difference to me and I take no offense either way. Just different ways of getting the same message across. I do agree that your definition is a bit more technically correct.

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Belief in God is thoroughly optional

The language you use can either make that point or make disparaging points. The use of the term "myth" is disparaging.

[BigMcLargehuge]

150. I am not even touching that argument muddle

I am merely clarifying the term Atheist.

You know as well as I that I rarely, if ever, participate in religious discussions. I am merely restating what it means to be Atheist and the place of faith when applied to that term.

I refuse to argue the validity/non-validity of belief systems. Religious history, I'm there. Theology in general, count me in. Otherwise I only intervene when Atheists are misrepresented.

[BigMcLargehuge]

145. they are not equal

belief is the quantifier and suggests that belief is the topic of the sentence and not the existence/nonexistence of god/gods. Atheisms requires no belief at all with regard to the existence/non-existence of god/gods.

[Liberal Veteran]

148. Yes, but you are a technical editor

....so you don't count anyway.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[BigMcLargehuge]

153. take that back!!

:hi:

and make it active!!!

[Blue_Chill]

146. No it is not

I am not offended by names tossed at other religions, especially those that pretty much have died out. However when you call that in which I believe in a myth it does offend me. I very much believe that my God exists and when you casually toss my belif aside with words such as "myth" and "fairy tale" it does offend me.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that this is so but I can not change the way I feel simpley to excuse your behavior.

[Walt Starr]

149. Myth is a factual representation of any god by definition

Until there is verification for the existance of any god, all gods remain myths by definition.

[Blue_Chill]

169. So what?

The dictionary doesn't decide that which offends.

[Walt Starr]

172. Oh yeah?

Go here>

http://www.m-w.com/

Enter the word "nigger". After that, put in the word "myth".

Then come back and tell me the same thing.

[Blue_Chill]

183. nigger is more offensive then myth, no one said otherwise.

However "liar" is less offensive then "You are so fucking full of shit" yet that doesn't mean liar is not offensive at all does it?

[Walt Starr]

189. Your original claim was

"The dictionary doesn't decide that which offends."

I showed you where the dictionary defines one as offensive and the other as not.

[Blue_Chill]

198. So then

The dictionary is the sole source for decideing what is offensive and what is not? Do you really want to base your argument on that?

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

152. That goes beyond the pale

an I have taken appropriate action.

[Muddleoftheroad]

158. Degree

The difference is merely a matter of degree. Hate speech is hate speech.

[Walt Starr]

163. Myth is not hate speech

regardless of your claims.

If you can demonstrate that any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist do, in fact, exist, then you may have an argument. Unfortunately, no such verification has been forthcoming in this thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Hate speech

Is never defined by those saying it, it's defined by the victims.

[Walt Starr]

174. How is making a statement of irrefutable fact

making you a victim. My myth, man, I even gave you the out to refute the statement. Siomply verify the existance of any one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist!

[Blue_Chill]

167. You are correct it is not hate speech.

It is however offensive to some and I would suggest limiting its use when referring to someone belief system.

[Walt Starr]

175. I will make the statement when it applies

It applied in this thread. It is an irrefutable statement of fact.

All gods are myths by definition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

156. Ah, another intelligent post

From the God-haters. Good job. Nice tolerance. Way to go.

Drive that wedge right down the middle of the party.

[BlackRhino]

173. I don't hate God. That would be like hating Martians.

I DO hate those who try to frighten others into believing as they do by pretending that there IS such a beast out there, and that he gets pissed if you don't believe in him.

[Blue_Chill]

190. And I dislike those that feel the need to

insult others because they don't share the same beliefs. In fact BlackRhino I haven't seem you post anything but the sort of posts that insult religious DUers. Do you not have anything else to add? Are you incapable of having a debate that consists of more then mindless insults?

[TLM]

168. So basicaly what you are saying is that it offends you

when someone describes your faith in factually accurate terms that denote the fact you have no proof that your god exists.

So in other words, you're offended by someone who doesn't believe in your superstitions.

You want the very language twisted to imply that your god is more than a figment of your imagination.

[BlackRhino]

177. It's all idiocy. A virulantly infectious disease of the mind.

And/or a tool used by elites of all stripes to mould the raw materials of society (ie, idiots) into complacent little darlings or ferocious faith-based warriors (whichever one is convenient at the time).

[Blue_Chill]

185. No that is not waht I am saying at all

Calling my beliefs a myth, is stating something as fact. Stating that you do not believe as I do is not offensive at all.

Language is a wonderful thing, there are many ways to get your point across without being an ass about it.

[BlackRhino]

187. I think believing in God is "being an ass."

Where does that leave me? Hmmm? Am I supposed to tolerate YOUR assinine behavior, while you fitz and sputter about MINE?

[Blue_Chill]

192. I do tolerate you

and I tolerate the fact that you think different then I do. However I am growing impatient with your insults.

Perhaps you should take a step back and read your posts. The only person showing a large degree of intolerance here is you my friend. I hope you can change that, as it does none of us any good.

[TLM]

202. Yes it is stating a fact...

I'm not calling your beliefs a myth... it is the subject of your beliefs that is the myth.

You have faith in a god, because there is no factual proof god even exists, hence the need for faith.

Absent proof of existance, your god is a myth. You believe in a myth.

[Blue_Chill]

204. Problem is that the word myth has many definitions

Myth
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth

As you can see that version states more then simpley "you can't prove it". So when you use such words you run the risk of offending. Unless you expalin exactly what you mean by using the word you will offend many. So it's best to avoid it and spare us all these long boring debates.

[Muddleoftheroad]

200. Yet another term

I see the Godless ones are out in force now. Now we have graduated to "superstitions." What next?

You are all unbelievable. We see dozens of threads about how religious people support the right too much and folks wonder why. Then we read this crap.

Any wonder why most of them think that the left is against them?

[Mandate My Ass]

205. RE: supporting the right

Don't worry, Muddle, there's a couple of good executions coming up this week and you and your invisible friend in the sky can celebrate the bloody sacrifice on the altar of vengeance. Oh, and a lot of righties will be celebrating right along with you.

[BlackRhino]

207. Time to evolve and emerge from the caves of ignorance, Muddle.

Sorry, but it's long past due.

[TLM]

208. Religion is a superstition by definition...

_________________________________________________
superstition

\Su`per*sti"tion\, n. 1. An excessive reverence for, or fear of, that which is unknown or mysterious.

2. An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion.
_________________________________________________



What the hell would yo call eating crackers and wine, while pretending it is flesh and blood... if not a superstition?

Why is it that nobody is allowed to describe your religion in anything but terms that imply your religion is correct and right and truth?

[Walt Starr]

59. It is not a putdown

It is a statement of irrefutable fact.

I am a religious man and an ordained priest.

It is not a putdown of religion, it is simply facing up to the facts of the situation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Sure

And when people call me "nigger," they are not putting me down. Words have power, whether you want to acknowledge that power is meaningless.

[Walt Starr]

71. Please, read Joseph Campbell

The myth of Jesus is a very powerful social outlet, however, the myth of a dying god is pervasive throughout the world. Krsna was a dying god, as was Osiris. Even the Buddha is a dying "god" in the mythology surrounding the Buddha.

Even Odin demonstrated this behavior, hanging on the Tree of Life, Yggdrasil, for three days to be delivered the Futhark Runes, thus imparting wisdom on mankind.

It's a part of all social constructs and cannot be ignored. Mythology is the underlying basis of all religion. This is an irrefutable fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. I have read enough of religious history thank you

But I still have my beliefs. To persist in calling them "myths" shows just how sensitive you are to others.

[Walt Starr]

76. Joseph Campbell is not a religion historian

Joseph Campbell was a Comparative Mythologist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Whatever

I don't care who or what he is. The word is still offensive, whether you and he agree or not.

[Walt Starr]

82. I will ALWAYS use the term myth when speaking of gods

because of the factual nature which I have already demonstrated here.

I have proven that all gods are myths. If you do not like it you must provide independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of ONLY ONE of the more than 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist in human history.

[Blue_Chill]

155. Why?

Why do you continue using it when you have been told again and again that it is offensive? Why do you knowingly offend others?

[Walt Starr]

179. I use factually accurate terminology as a frame of reference

All gods are myths. That is a factually accurate frame of reference for any discussion of religion.

[Forkboy]

83. You using MLK's pic is offensive

but we can't always get our way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. How so?

I happen to think Dr. King was a great man. Don't you?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

194. What should we call your beliefs?

Since myth is offensive... would you prefer fantasy, superstition, dogma, or make beliefs?

Or would you rather your believes be referred to as facts, truth, and reality?

I get the feeling that the only terminology you would not find offensive is that which implies that your god is factual, real, and exists in some verifiable form.

So what really offends you is that others won’t use terminology that gives lip service to your beliefs.

Is your faith so weak you need people around you to coddle you and reassure you with spun terminology? Would you rather non-believers just pretend to believe to make you more comfortable?

[Walt Starr]

60. Also, I do have faith

in my Goddess and God. I also recognize the mythical nmature of both because faith is a requirement, there is no independently verifiable evidence to support Their existance. That does not make them any less real to me, in fact, it makes the Mysteries of The Goddess and The God all that more wondrous!

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Religion

I don't know what religion you represent, but most religious people here take offense at the term "myth." Just because you don't doesn't make that any less true.

[Walt Starr]

72. Taking offense at the term "myth" is really pretty silly

It is a factual statement that all religion is based upon mythology.

It is also an irrefutable fact.

Read Joseph Campbell and get back to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Fuck Joseph Campbell

Stop using offensive terms and get back to me.

[Walt Starr]

78. All gods are myths

Whether you choose to accept a proven fact or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Your gods might be

Mine is not. The term remains offensive.

[Walt Starr]

85. Your god remains a myth too

until you can provide independently verifiable evidence to support your god's existance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Sorry

But you don't make the rules of the world. Hate to break it to you.

[Walt Starr]

99. This is a debate

I made a statement of irrefutable fact by proving that all gods are myths by definition.

By definition, for some thing or some one to not be a myth requires verification.

Provide verification for the god you assert or it remains a myth by definition.

[anti_shrub]

100. Neither do you

Cripes All Friday man, all he's trying to say is that all gods are by definition myths, and just because you think the word is offensive it doesn't make it so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. It's not just me

This has been argued endlessly here at DU. This and the attitude behind use of such terms like "myth," "God-pod," etc. are the reason why religion was shut down as a topic here.

I won't back off. It's an offensive term. I take it so. And a whole bunch of other folks around here have made the same point.

[Walt Starr]

119. I did not use "God-pod"

I used myth, provided the definitions to prove my statement, and demonstrated the methodology for refutation.

If you do not like the statement that all gods are myths by definition, the answer is simple. Prove me wrong. Provide the verification for your god's existance and I will state openly I am wrong in my statement.

In fact, you don't hafve to verify your god's existance. There are at least 3999 others that have been alleged. You could verify any of them to exist and I would make the same statement that I am wrong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. No you did not

But others have. If two slurs are used and you use one, while others use the second, it makes sense for me to reference both.

Like I said, it was this kind of persistence in using offensive terms that got religion banned as a topic.

[Walt Starr]

127. Point me to the post on this thread that uses "God-pod"

I'll alert on it.

My statement stands.

All gods are myths by defnition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

144. Did you read my post?

Sure doesn't seem like you did.

This has been an ongoing battle here for months. I know you've been here that long. Perhaps you were napping and missed it.

The terms "God-pod" and "myth" are much like the terms "nigger" and "darkie" that I still get hit with. They are both offensive.

[Walt Starr]

157. "God-pod" I will agree with, myth cannot be a disparagin remark

I have demonstrated that myth is a factual term to be used in conjunction with any god alleged to exist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

161. Darkie remains a factual term

But I am offended by its use.

[Blue_Chill]

159. You will alert it?

Because god pod is a common phrase on DU and I've never see you take offense to it before.

[Walt Starr]

178. Generally, I no longer respond to offensive posts

I use alert.

[Blue_Chill]

199. An example I would do well to follow

thanks for alerting those folks Walt. Sorry for doubting you.

[Forkboy]

88. Walt

you'd be better off having your balls smashed flat by a giant wooden mallet and then pierced with a knitting needle then trying to convince Muddle of anything.

[Walt Starr]

93. I will not back down from a statement of irrefutable fact

I will never stop using the term "myth" to describe any and all gods.

I've even demonstrated how a god can stop being classified as a myth by definition.

I await any evidence and am open to it, however, when somebody wrongly accuses me of a "put down" I will call them on it.

[Blue_Chill]

165. irrefutable fact ?

Hate to break it to you pal, but the person doing the offending doesn't get to decide what is offensive. You sound like the Redskins who can prove that when they named the team it was a non offensive term, but now it is offensive. So the courts no longer side with them.

Things change and myth is now offensive. You have been told this over and over and if you continue to use it you are using it knowing that you are being offensive.

[Walt Starr]

180. There is but one way to refute the statement

"all gods are myths by defnition"

You must verify the existance of any one of the over 4000 gods that have been allaged to exist.

Do it and I will admit I am wrong. It has never been done although people have tried for thousands of years.

And once you refute my statement, faith becomes obsolete.

edited to add:

And once you refute it, all religions besides the one associated with the verified deity become invalid.

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. I like that image

Thanks.

[BlackRhino]

137. Words mean things.

Idiot.

[Az]

44. That would explain

why a lower number of atheists per capita are found in jail than religious people. Er no wait. That would seem to suggest the opposite of what you are saying. Lets see here. Nonreligious people make up anywhere from 14%-20% of the population yet they make up only about 1.2% of the Prison population. But that would suggest..... na. Couldn't be.

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

[Wednesdays]

17. Who are these people?

I googled the names, and turned up nothing. Obviously they're very obscure. Where are their studies? :shrug:

[DEMActivist]

19. Hell of a question isn't it?

I did the same. Google turned up nothing.

Must be time for another email to ABC, huh? Perhaps THEY can find the credentials of these whack jobs.

[vptpt]

24. This "Doctor" person...

...doesn't even show up in the Dartmouth directory. Reliable source of information, indeed!

[BiggJawn]

18. Oh, Man.....The Sheeple will eat this up, for sure....

Now hear me out before you throw down the "Elitist" card...

We KNOW there are people who saw that who will eat it up, just because some "Doctor from Dartmouth" said it, and she must be a smart lady to be a doctor and all that, c'mon kids, we're going to CHURCH...

And you jump my(and other folks) shit when I say we have a LOT of stupid people in this country?

GMA and ABC would have never had "Dr. KKK" on if they thought that the majority of their audience was as discerning as your average DU'er. But they KNOW their viewers, so we get told that kids have a "biological NEED" for Santa Claus...

It's RW ReTHUG programming. Does not the Christian bible say "Bring up a child in the way he should go, and when he is older, he will not depart from it..."?
Start them out young, and the RW will own their asses (and their VOTES) forever....

[JewelDigger]

20. Belief in God and belief in religion

are two ENTIRELY different things (as several posters have already been pointing out). I think it's 'funny' how too often people who believe too dearly in their religion, in fact lose their focus on God.

Btw, saw a GREAT quote earlier this morning and was wondering where/when I could use it...

'Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, give a man religion and he'll starve to death while he's praying for a fish.'

[buddhamama]

27. biologically- what did they base the claim on?

astounding!

[KittyWampus]

28. We Require Some Spiritual Attunement

But I reject this woman's thesis... since she refers to her own limited idea of God and Religion and most likely has a very fundamentalist agenda.

It is, IMO, our "Spiritual" aspect which allows us to move beyond our Reptilian Brain and reach towards Enlightenment and Unity.

Biologically, we do have a need for "Unity" which I believe is the core of all Spiritual Traditions.

That is what sex is all about... a need for Unity.

Sex can be a deeply Spiritual Experience... although many people seem to treat it as a means of personal self gratification.

[BigMcLargehuge]

29. a little self gratification goes a long way...

not arguing that sex can't be a spiritual experience, but I've always found the immediate gratification far outweighs the spiritual quest when it comes to bumping uglies.

[chiburb]

Attunement as in At Onement...

Couldn't agree more, the need for CommUnity.

[Kamika]

30. so what was her argument?

curious

[BigMcLargehuge]

31. probably had something to do with balancing the four humours

I know that will bring down the "you called my relgion a myth" crowd in all their righteous fury, but I just couldn't help it.

[Walt Starr]

33. Religions themselves cannot be myths

There is verifiable evidence that religions exist, as opposed to the gods the religions assert.

[BigMcLargehuge]

34. I know that... you know that... but do they know that?

Note the quotes...

just typing what I've seen.

:)

[smirkymonkey]

151. Aren't all religions basically creation myths?

cultural variants used to explain basically the same concept?

[dmr]

36. The Biological Roots of Religion - Is Faith in Our Genes?

I just found this on google. I didn't read it because I have no interest in reading anything about it. Faith is a private matter. The little bit I did read sounds like it's suppose to help our children to fit into society, but what do I know? Makes me think it's more of a controlling issue, but to be fair, I didn't read the article.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hunt_19_3.html

The Biological Roots of Religion
Is Faith in Our Genes?
by Morton Hunt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 3.

- snip -

To see how interaction works, consider the case of language. (This is my example, not Wilson's.) No other animal has anything remotely like our language capacity. That's because only the human brain has two specialized zones, Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area, both on the left side, in which the neurons are so connected as to form a mechanism that recognizes the relationships among the words in sentences. No actual language is prewired in those areas; no child, raised apart from the sound of language, has ever spontaneously spoken. But our brains evolved in such a way that every normal toddler can spontaneously figure out what people around him or her are saying, no matter what words and grammar they are using. The evidence of prehistoric skull sizes and shapes, ancient artifacts, and the customs of primitive peoples indicates that the immense advantages of linguistic communication favored individuals with greater neurological capacity for verbal communication, and that culture and genetics coevolved to produce the modern human brain and the resultant thousands of human languages.

This is a paradigm for the development of religion. As Professor Burkert puts it: "We may view religion, parallel to language ... , as a long-lived hybrid between cultural and the biological traditions." <6> He maintains that we have biological tendencies and capacities that cause us to need, learn, value, and practice religion - not any specific religion, of course, but any one of the thousands of religions that, despite the vast differences among them, all tend to fulfill similar needed functions for individuals and, just as important, for the society they live in.

More .....

[DrGonzoLives]

37. So does this mean that the RW religionuts are accepting genetics?

Because, unless there is a gene that requires the intake of religion (however that works), there is no biological need for religion.

[papau]

45. Why fight your DNA :-)

the "There is a God and I believe in God" sequence is just before the "I am smarter than everyone else" sequence, and just after the "my opinion is correct and even more correct if others do not agree" sequence.

Still this has been a fun thread!

:toast:

:-)

[Astarho]

51. I see the point she is trying to make, BUT...

I think she is wrong. Children involved in Congregations may be less likely to get in trouble, but I think it is from the social aspect of the congregation more then the religion itself.

Children need a connection with others, all human beings do. Children also need intellectual stimulation (when was the last time you saw something like that on TV?). But I say let them find their own path and support them with that.

Interesting note, they went to commercial and we see a woman in the store with a bratty kid throwing a tantrum and wanting something so the woman buys it for the kid. People think that children are supposed to act this way, and then we have to find ways for them not to be. Very odd.

[Az]

52. There is a demonstrable need for children to obey their parents

Evolutionarily speaking it is better for children to obey their partents and accept their instruction without question. Thus the genetic favoring of adherance to indoctrination. Just because an opportunistic socially propogating instrution set can take advantage of this prediliction to believe what we are told does not make it a biological necessity.

[bloom]

53. This morning I passed a church on the way home from the park...

And I was thinking about church as group of people that are in the business to "care about each other" - which is a nice concept and sometimes it even works. But then some churches have to add the guilt factor (esp. fundies) - like that has to be a componant, as well.

It seems like the idea of church is more important for young people - getting a sense of the world and having caring others involved - and for old people who know they will be leaving soon - and would appreciate spiritual support.

In between, it seems less important. (There are jobs, friends, whatever).

People who are atheists/agnostics and want this type of community can go to a Universalist Unitarian church. Also liberal Quaker meetings have a lot of agnostics, as well. They also have people that desire a group experience of trying to be better people and looking for the good in others.

Some atheists/agnostics/& religous people may find groups of people outside of any kind of church and that can be just as good.

I think it does go back to the villiage idea. Moving into a small town with small children - we had a desire to find a group to be involved in. Church ended up being the main connection we had with others in the town.

Not really connecting to anyone is, I believe, a recipe for mental illness. We connect with each other here. But kids do need some sense of a group somehow - I think.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. IOW, it could be argued that there is a sociological need for religion...

...or an equivalent, but not a biological one.

[bloom]

58. More or less

I would suggest that it is the group experience of community and caring over a religious one. Although religious groups can fulfill that role. (Those people probably wouldn't have wanted to consider Pagans as religion, I imagine).

Societal and life circumstances leading to mental illness which could become biological or biologically treated - it's a stretch - but there could be an argument.

[papau]

62. imho athiest, pagans are belief systems and as such religions

"religious groups can fulfill that role. (Those people probably wouldn't have wanted to consider Pagans as religion, I imagine)."

Indeed it takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist given the lack of proof that God does not exist. :-)

I agree, the social need to belong to a group is very important - but this is available by getting out of bed and learning who is in your family and your village. Then mores and social norms control the kids behavior - if enforced.

The need we have - and are discussing - is for a belief system - a "religion" - and for most of us - that is a belief in God.

and the question is whether or not that need - or any need - or any selection of needs - is precoded in the DNA.

peace

:-)

[bloom]

108. You're right - I'm getting off-track from the GOD-DNA thing

I do think that it is possible for religious experience (and other positive experiences like I've mentioned) to enhance mental and social health. And in that vein - I don't think it is totally off-track.

I think the people on the show probably have a more narrow view of how the benefits might occur. But I don't know - I didn't see the show.

IOW - I can see someone arguing for positive physiological benefits.

What the basis of those benefits are seem more debatable.

[BigMcLargehuge]

109. I'm weighing here against my better judgement...

Atheists do not possess faith, nor to they "believe" in the absence of a diety or dieties... This is a common and extremely annoying statement that SO MANY theists here make and everytime I see it I want to slap something, someone...

It takes no "faith" to be Atheist. We don't attempt to prove god doesn't exist, it's logically impossible to prove a negative. What we do is insist that those who believe prove that a diety (dieties) does exist, then we dismantle their arguments.

No faith necessary. No belief either. I don't say "I don't believe there is a god" I say, "there is no god".

I urge all of you in the faith to LEARN this distinction.

To keep this on topic...

Children have about as much biological need for religion as fish have a biological need for running shoes. GAM just pulled another RW hit job on the unsuspecting and laregely uneducated public. Why doesn't that surprise me?

[Blue_Chill]

135. It takes no faith at all, you are correct. It does however take

a little hubris.

If there is no evidence, or in this case unduplicated evidence, one would be correct in saying "there is no way of knowing one way or the other."

[BigMcLargehuge]

160. if you are agnostic, you are correct

Atheists are no agnostic. There is/are no god/gods. That's all you can get out of us.

This is more of a linguistic argument than anything else. But speaking as an Atheist, I see our position so often misrepresented (by virtually ALL posters, theists, agnostic, and atheist alike). I merely want to clarify the place of belief in Atheist philosophy.

There is none. By definition Atheist is without god not without belief.

[Tesha]

61. There are changes in the brain...

during rituals like singing, chanting, reciting, mediating the "sensations of calm, unity and transcendence correspond to increased activity in the brain's frontal lobes (behind the forehead) and decreased activity in the parietal lobes at the top rear of the head" -

and apparently there are long term changes as well, I remember from somewhere that permanent changes in children's brains can be attributed directly to their indocrination into religion.

I suppose some of this might translate - but the arrogance of some folks to say that its required! Where's the science?

[Walt Starr]

64. Don't those changes have something to do with the serotonin receptors?

or the pleasure centers if you will?

Similar effects were observed with drugs such as cannabis, hallucinogens, and even chocolate if I'm not mistaken.

[bloom]

86. Actually - I think yoga does positive things for my brain

(more than religion) - as far as seretonin effects. And I think far more positive than "cannabis, hallucinogens, and even chocolate" - (as much as I like chocolate).

[Walt Starr]

90. Possibly

But the measurable effects are nearly identical.

[bloom]

112. THAT is the problem with "measurable effects"

We probably haven't gotten that good at measuring.

I am quite convinced - because of changes I have experienced in myself from doing yoga - lapsing - taking it up again, etc. that it is more effective in my feelings of well-being than prozac (or cannibis...). And if the scientific community hasn't been able to measure that - it doesn't make it not so.

[Walt Starr]

131. Well, we were only talking measurable efects on the brain

When you add measurable effects to other organs, your statements are absoltuely true. Drugs defnitely have adverse effects on other organs, and those effects are measurable.

Yoga, however, does not have any measurable detrimental effect that I am aware of. Religion, on the other hand, can and does have detrimental effects when taken to the extreme, such as the case with fundamentalism, although those effects are social in nature.

:D

[bloom]

139. ...

While I am no doubt physically healthier, also, when I referred to "my feelings of well-being" - I was speaking of positive _mental_ and emotional effects. The brain, in other words. Which is affected by the body, no doubt.

[FlaGranny]

134. I'm not sure about the chocolate part.

Chocolate is pretty positive for my serotonin levels. :-) For that matter, a nice walk can do wonders.

[Blue_Chill]

116. How is it that this thread has reached 100+?

IMHO it's very simple - No one biologically needs religion. These fundies are just ranting as usual.

Move on folks nothing to see here.

[SlutBunwalla]

130. That segment wasn't QUITE as fundie-centric as you allege...

It dealt as much with humanity's search for meaning in life as it did with whether or not we're "hard-wired" for religion (be it Christianity or any other belief system).

The idea is also not a new one--French anthopologist Rene Girard has written extensively on the almost universal occurrence of this in human society; the best of his books is Violence and the Sacred, (published about 30 years ago, and still in print) and one I highly recommend to both believers and non-believers. It is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read (and I've RE-read this one several times).

Girard details at length the human need to "create" a god or gods (talks about everything from the Greek pantheon to Christianity and beyond), and the purpose that serves in society. He does this not from a pro-religion or anti-religion standpoint, and is careful to point out how certain aspects of this very human tendency can be extremely destructive.

Here's a link to the book on Amazon (complete with a few excerpts):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801822181/qid=1063127590/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0870924-4847810

[alfredo]

133. Religion as in taking part in the tribe?

We are animals that live in groups. Nothing we do is outside of our biological make up. For there to be order in any group, be it Greater Kudo, chimpanzee, or human, there has to be leaders and followers. this social order must serve some purpose for our survival or it wouldn't be there. Answering to a higher power might be something genetic in us. That higher power could be the silver-back, or line supervisor, but even they have the need inside them.


I have to answer to the tribal leader, but who does he answer to? who gave him the power to lord over me.

Why can't I lead this group?

God gave me the power over you.

Who is this god?

He is a very wise man.

Where is this God?

He's over the hill.

Can we see him?

No, he only talks to me.

Why?

Because I am the leader.

[bloom]

141. Aaahh

But there are also social groups, and religions where leadership is shared, rotated, or by group consensus.

And where "God" is in all of us.

[TLM]

196. Well... kids do need fantasy...

so in a way there is a place for religion... but it might be better to just read them Aesop’s fables... there are better lessons in that fiction and a lot less brutality.

[lazarus]

206. Okay

Started nice, but then, of course, it turned into a nasty mess. Locking.

lazarus, DU moderator